Workmen's advocate., 1887-02-19
DEAD MEMS RULE
LAW IN RELATION TO CRIME
 AND TO PROPERTY.
Extracts from the Theory of Human Progression" - Legislation by Capitalists -- Law Cannot
 Make d Crime. Nor
 Land Property.

One striking fact IS apparent In considering the past history of laws with regard to crime and property. The laws with regard to crimes have been considered alterable: the laws with regard to property have been considered unalterable.
 One generation of legislators and rulers made an action legal crime; but the next generation did not, on that account, consider it self-bound forever so to esteem it. On the con- trarv every generation of legislators has considered itself at full liberty to alter, revise, amend, and abolish, such laws, according to its own judgment.
 But with regard to the States gift of lands it has been quite otherwise.
 The deeds of past rulers have been supposed to extend to all future generations; and the doctrine now prevalent, that the lands, once alienated by the states gift, could not be reassumed by the nation withouta breach of equity-without, in fact, committing that crime ab- horrent in the eyes of the arlstoc- racy-" attacking the rights of prop erty."
 This discrepancy is at once ex- planned, when we reflect that legls- lators have been for the most part landlords themselves, or those so immediately connected with their interests, that the government was, to all intents and purposes, a land lordocracy. But the question still occurs, and must occur again and again; "F tue acts of past rulers were not morally permanent clth re- gard to crin,e, hOv can they possibly Je so with regard to property?"
 We have now to show that crime and property are not distinct in fact, that, so far as regards legisla- tation, they are identical; and that the laws tor States grants, which are, in fact. nothing else than laws, although this fact is overlooked) re- garding landed property are neither more nor less than laws regarding crime. Property is usually regarded as an object-as something essenti- ally distinguished from actio~. Yet we shall undertake to show that action alone is concerned, and that all laws regarding property are merely laws regarding action. And if we succeed in doing this, we have unhinged the superstition that pre- vails on the subject of landed prop erty.
 The apparent hopelessness of ef- fecting any radical change in the present system, and the fear of ad- vocating ("wild'') doctrines, have both exerted an influence ill repres- sing investigation. This apathy, however, cannot long continue. Whatever may be the result the ln- vestigation cannot fail to be made. We now undertake to show that the gift of land by the State is nothing more than law affecting acti0n, and, consequently, is of the same character as asIaw relating to crime And if so, it must follow the genera course of the laws relating to crime and if those laws are not morally permanent, neither is the State' gift of land morally permanent, bu may be revised, amended, or obot ished, exactly in the same manner al a law affecting crime. Neither tn, one nor the other is one atom mor valid, or more binding on accoun of legislation. They are right now or wrong now, wholly and solely ac cording to their own merits. Tn law cannot make crime, althougl the law may call an action by thi name, and treat 1t as such; and tn law cannot make portion of land property, although it may call property.